Ashwell Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 10239

Received: 10/08/2022

Respondent: Mrs Beth Byrne

The purpose of this note is to provide feedback on the Ashwell Conservation Area proposals.
Whilst we enjoy living in Ashwell and love our home, we do not consider it to be architecturally and historically special. Nor do we consider the neighbouring properties to either side of us to be special. Again, they are lovely houses but not architecturally or historically special.

We believe these properties should not be in the conservation area which should end at the village side of The Hedgerows (no. 30) over to the listed thatched cottage opposite.

Comment

Representation ID: 10240

Received: 24/08/2022

Respondent: Dr Paul Pover

Number of people: 2

We attended the recent meeting in the Ashwell Village Hall and have read the relevant parts of the above plan.

We are disappointed that while consideration was given to extending the conservation area to include the land reaching the south west corner of Partridge Hill and Ashwell Street, it was not included in the latest proposal (Visual Character Area 4).

Please note that all but one house within this area closest to Partridge Hill are mid 20th century rather than late 20th century including Lane Head believed to originate in the early 1930's.

It has been noted in the Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan that Visual Character Area 4 includes Green infrastructure. Chiefly this pertains to the land adjacent to the Grade 2 listed building (Orchard, hedgerows and mature woodland). This serves as a wildlife corridor and habitat and in our opinion is visually attractive and enhances the amenity value for residents and visitors who enjoy walking, horseriding and cycling along Ashwell Street.

To the west of this area are large, tree planted gardens which provide additional green space and habitat, to the south west corner. Our view is that conservation area status would help protect both of these areas from unwanted development.

We note that the land on which the Grade 2 listed dwelling at the bottom of the Orchard has been included in the proposal. In our view it would therefore be beneficial to extend this all the way up to Ashwell Street as originally considered.

I trust you will find these comments useful and assist with your implementation of the Ashwell Conservation Area Extension.

Comment

Representation ID: 10241

Received: 04/09/2022

Respondent: Mr Magnus Willatts

I would like to contribute to the consultation on the above CAAMP. My interest is as a land owner.

I refer to Figure 12 on page 22 of the CAAMP and the accompanying text on Page 21. I draw attention to Item 6: The Orchard, West End. I would comment as follows:

• The proposal suggests an extension to the CA to include the entire listed building (Official Listing 1175465) while continuing to exclude the industrial buildings. The extended area on the plan is not in alignment with this statement - the area (blue on P22) now includes one of the industrial buildings and the concrete driveway servicing the works. Please refer to the attached image - ‘The Orchard CA Extension’. The Red area shows the existing conservation area; the green area shows the proposed extension; the blue area shows the correct listed building extent.
• The Historic England Listing for the property describes the proposed additional part of the building as follows: “Large C20 extension on left is not of special interest.” As such I would request that no extension to the conservation area is necessary and point out that the extra building does not fulfil conservation area criteria of “special architectural and historic interest”.

Comment

Representation ID: 10242

Received: 02/09/2022

Respondent: Natural England - East of England Region

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England has no comments to make on the Draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans for Ashwell.

The lack of comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may wish to make comments that might help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of any environmental risks and opportunities relating to this document.

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, please consult Natural England again.

Comment

Representation ID: 10246

Received: 09/09/2022

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council - Environment & Infrastructure Department

The Historic Environment team wish to make the following comments,

• We would always advise that authorities engage with the HCC Historic Environment team during the preparation of consultation documents of this nature.

• The consultation documents are not clear if the Historic Environment Record (HER) have been consulted. If the HER has not been consulted then this should be done both because it is a requirement of the NPPF but also because it provides the most complete record for heritage assets for the county, including historic buildings. If the HER has not been consulted, please consult the HER and revise the CAAMPs. If the HER has been consulted then please acknowledge this accordingly within the CAAMPs.

• It is noted that at least one of the Scheduled Monuments shown in the document for Pirton are incorrect and therefore Historic England should be contacted to confirm the correct extent of Scheduled Monuments.

• Both the documents should be prepared using a comprehensive walk over survey of the settlements to inform their respective recommendations.

• It is encouraging that the documents have included sections on archaeological remains (heritage assets with archaeological interest), and we advise that the historic environment should be looked at in a more holistic way, including conservation and archaeology. This thread should be continued throughout the documents. For example the meaning of the terms ‘Heritage’,’ undesignated heritage assets’ and ‘’local lists should be clarified. Namely that all these do not only include locally listed buildings but archaeological features/remains as well. For example (and these may not be exhaustive) this is unclear in Ashwell page 64, Pirton, pages 57-8.

Comment

Representation ID: 10247

Received: 14/09/2022

Respondent: Historic England

See Attached

Comment

Representation ID: 10287

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: North Hertfordshire District Council

See Attached

Comment

Representation ID: 10288

Received: 12/09/2022

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

This response is sent by the Property Planning Team at Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) on behalf of the County Council as a landowner in Ashwell.

HCC as landowner in Ashwell have no comments to make on the draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans (CAAMPs) for Ashwell.

Comment

Representation ID: 10310

Received: 10/08/2022

Respondent: Mr David Cook

There are a number of points I would want to make about the consultation proposals.

Things I agree with

1. Generally speaking, I can understand and empathise with the overall tone of the consultation document.

2. It was refreshing to see an acknowledgement that there may be property currently in the conservation area which does not belong there. (Example Townsend Meadow).

Things I take as Givens

Throughout planning law and case law, there is a clear thread that planning restrictions (which conservation areas bring, of course) should not be imposed lightly. They must be proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all other respects etc.

The national guidance on conservation area designation reinforces that conservation area status is not to be imposed lightly. In general terms, it provides that to be included within a conservation area, buildings need to be of special architectural or historic interest. Furthermore, inclusion areas which are not detracts and weakens the importance of conservation areas.

One can envisage there is a case for including a minority of property, which does not perhaps meet this bar, but is surrounded by properties that clearly do. However, if that ratio is reversed or there is a cluster of properties that do not meet the standard such as Townsend Meadow, then one might expect them not to be embraced by the conservation area.

Of course, one should also consider issues such as the definition and boundary of a conservation area. One should be able to notice by the special nature of the properties, that one might be in a conservation area.

NPPF

“When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest”.

Suggested Changes

The following are areas that do not seem to meet the criterion of being special architecturally or historically. I shall take each area in turn and provide photographs.

I have stratified my comments into those which I feel are relatively straight forward and clear-cut verses those which are less clear cut.

Clearer Cut Cases

1. Dixies Close (west)

Dixies Close has two parts. There is a footpath which dissects Dixies north to south. To the east of that footpath, towards the school, are a series of earlier properties. These are the ones referred to in the Consultation Document. To the west of that footpath are a series of later properties that have no architectural or historic merit at all. Please see photographs nos. D1 – D11 & also enclosed map.

There is no justifying narrative in the consultation document which covers the properties to the west of the footpath. It appears the Dixies Close net has been thrown a little too wide.

The properties to the west of the footpath should not be added into the conservation area. They do not meet the criteria.

2. Western entrance to the conservation area/West End

The western entrance to the conservation area from the Newnham Road includes a finger embracing a highway and 4 homes. There is only one building which is of a quality that might be considered to be of local interest, namely West Point (WE6). The other three properties, 30, 32 & 34 West End – (please see photos WE1 – WE5) remain designated as within the conservation area. None of these three properties can be argued to have special architectural or historical interest. Similarly, the street scene outside 30, 32 & 34 is festooned with signage and traffic management structures, which urbanise the area outside these properties. I welcome these highway improvements but they only add to the ordinary nature of the area.

A more natural and appropriate commencement to the conservation area comes from a line joining the western end of the charming long curving Cambridge brick wall boundarying the north of the highway (WE7) to the listed thatched property opposite (WE8). That represents a clear commencement to the conservation area, which is easily read.

It appears that in an attempt to embrace West Point within the original conservation area proposals, the obvious commencement of the conservation area has been artificially adjusted to wrap around West Point.

If one considered West Point to be an important building, it could (arguably should) find its way onto a local buildings of historic interest list.

West Point has unremarkable properties to its east, west and south.

Other important properties which might be considered historically interesting, but are outside the conservation area, e.g. the farmhouse at the end of Green Lane or Elbrook House) do not have an artificial finger of conservation area embracing areas of no special merit, just to reach them. West Point should not be so treated.

If it is considered vital to retain West Point in the conservation area, then 30, 32 & 34 should be excluded and a highway “bridge” be used to embrace West Point.

Personally, I believe excluding that western finger gives a stronger, clear-cut entrance to the conservation area and better meets the requirements of the NPPF. There are other more appropriate ways to recognise a single isolated property of merit amongst many other less noteworthy examples.

The western boundary of the conservation area should be moved to the village side eastern edge of number 34 West End, across to the western edge of the listed property opposite. (see enclosed map).

Failing that, nos. 30, 32 & 34 West End should be removed from the conservation area.

Less Clear Cut Cases

3. Area 3 – a field to the south of the ruddery

I have concerns about including this area. I do not see it as architecturally or historically special. It does have some historic features which bring their own protection in planning law. The field is outside of the village boundary and is land in open countryside. That also brings a particularly high level of protection.

I am aware the Parish Council proposed its inclusion. I fear there is a misunderstanding here that conservation area status is a way of providing protection against development. Irrespective of whether that is the case or not, I think it is problematic to designate this field as being in the Ashwell conservation area. Please allow me to explain why.

A land owner motivated to develop this area, may indeed, bring forward the argument that, although technically designated as land in open countryside, it ought to be considered as part of the Ashwell village settlement, not least because it is part of the Ashwell village conservation area! Certainly, if I were that landowner, I would be lobbying for a change in the village boundary to regularise the conservation area as within the settlement. There is, of course, also the issue of how “settings” are considered in planning law.

I do not have strong views either way, but I think as a general rule, one wouldn’t normally expect to see agricultural fields outside a settlement boundary as part of its conservation area. I think it brings as many, if not more problems and risks as it does returns.


4. Doctors Surgery & Woverley House

Personally, I can see no special historic or architectural merit to either of these buildings. Of course, the thatched wall bordering Woverley House, should remain with an appropriate buffer to the rear of it (as viewed from the highway).

General Comments

It appears to me that some individual properties in a conservation area might make a positive contribution; others perhaps a neutral or even a negative contribution. Perhaps if that type of graduated language were used more in reports from the planning authority and its consultants, it would help deepen understanding that all properties are not equal in a conservation area. That in turn might lead to a more appropriate and nuanced approach to the treatment of different properties within a conservation area. To paraphrase Orwell, just because all the properties are in the conservation area, does not mean al the properties make an equal contribution. We need to be more explicit about that to avoid blanket approaches being applied.
Apologies - correction on photos.

West End 1 - should read 34 West End

West End 3 - should read 30 West End

Comment

Representation ID: 10312

Received: 12/09/2022

Respondent: Jane Porter

See attached

Comment

Representation ID: 10313

Received: 02/09/2022

Respondent: Ashwell Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

See Attached

Comment

Representation ID: 10314

Received: 12/09/2022

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

See Attached